< July 1 July 3 >

July 2

Category:People from Jupiter Island, Florida

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. According to the categorization guideline for people: "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual;" however, "people are sometimes categorized by notable residence ... regardless of ethnicity, heritage, or nationality." In other words, someone should not be classified as being 'from' a place solely on the basis of being born there, nor on the basis of residence that is not significant (e.g., a temporary military deployment).
Whether residence in Jupiter Island, Florida, is defining for the various individuals who live(d) there is a matter of editorial judgment to be exercised on a case-by-case basis. If it is not defining for any of them, they should be removed from the category (not upmerged) and it would become empty (and, therefore, eligible for speedy deletion); if, on the other hand, it is defining for at least some of them, then the category could (depending on its population) be nominated for upmerging once again. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Town is less than 700 people. Not much room for growth. WP:SMALLCAT ...William 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Transportation in Parry Sound, Ontario

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 26. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There were previously seven articles in this category, however six of them were mis-categorised (in Parry Sound District vis-a-vis Parry Sound itself). Once those were removed there was only one article left, which is already in the appropriate PSD category as well, so there remains no need for this category. The Bushranger One ping only 21:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Electoral districts in Hong Kong

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These "electoral districts" are officially called "constituencies". The category name is misleading. Quest for Truth (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Harry Potter

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename without "Wikipedia". WP:CAT#Special conventions refers us to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Project categories; for an example of task forces, it gives Category:Military history articles by task force, e.g. Category:German military history task force articles which has been there since 2006. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have recently converted WP:Harry Potter into a task force. Therefore, renaming is needed. Unfortunately, proposal was supposed to be speedy and to be like category:Roahl Dahl task force. George Ho (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People born in Springfield, Massachusetts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. There is no consensus for separately categorising places of either birth or upbringing from notable places of residence later in life. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can see, there are no other categories for people born in x place - the standard seems to be "People from x place" to cover people who were born or lived in a location. This user also has created categories against current naming conventions/consensus too (see their talkpage, which he blanks each time).Lugnuts (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That standard would still apply, so there is no problem there. I have done in the past, yes. Brad7777 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Born in' was determined to be not defining years ago at one or more CfDs. The problem is that it is not defining for everyone/most/all. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Residence and Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_place. Lugnuts (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment I did notice the difference in articles, so I placed all the correct articles into the "people born in" category, (which is at the moment a subcat of "people from"). 129 were "born in", and 51 were left in "people from". I guess I fail to see how Category:Year X Births is notable/defining, but not Category:Births in X. Also, I did not create it to cause a violation, i did it to create an notable/characterstic/defining extension. This extension is objective, so not sure it would need a discussion on inclusion criteria. Brad7777 (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also remember WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid issue in these discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. Brad7777 (talk) 19:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nelson Piquet, Jr. was born in Heidelberg, West Germany, but he isn't German or notable for being from West Germany - he's Brazilian. He just happened to be born in West Germany because his parents were there for the Grand Prix at the time (as Nelson Piquet was a Formula One driver of some small repute); there's precisely zero notability with regards to Germany for him. His year of birth, on the other hand, doesn't depend on where he was geographically at the time of birth. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I see the point you are making on notability, but then doesn't that imply that Nelson Piquet, Jr. should be removed from Category:People from Heidelberg as it is not notable in this case? (And similarly for all other special cases?) Brad7777 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it could well mean that. Being born somewhere does not automatically mean that the person is "from" that place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He probably should be, yes. Worth mentioning in Heidelberg's article, but not in the cat. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Category:Place of birth missing is more of a tracking category and works with the current PersonData template to identify missing data. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally a rename from category:People from X to Category:People associated with X sound's good to me. And having sub-cats such as Category:Born in X, Category:People who live in X etc where appropriate. What we have at the moment is overcomplicated, vague and misleading. It's potential for characteristic/organic improvement is being prevented by outdated standards. I think the problem is trying to make this category both inclusive and exclusive Brad7777 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
example Take William Pynchon the founder of Springfield, Massachusetts. No doubt he should be in a category of the form Category:People ~ Springfield, Massachusetts. But he is not from Springfield, Massachusetts. The word "from" is exclusive. But Category:People from Springfield, Massachusetts is acting as if it is inclusive, which is all good, but should use a relation instead of "from" that is actually inclusive, so be renamed to something like Category:People associated with Springfield, Massachusetts to emphasize this. The subcategories of this, then could be exclusive, like as an example Category:People born in Springfield, Massachusetts, whilst still have the inclusive parent category for any exceptions (like William Pynchon - the founder) Brad7777 (talk) 11:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the sort of thing we need. The categories at the moment are vague. For the British categories, "People from Foo" generally means the place where the person was born or raised (up to adulthood). Most people, in my experience, when they say "I'm from X" mean that's where they were born or grew up, not where they live now. I, for example, grew up 200 miles from my present home and haven't lived there for over 20 years, but I still say that's where I'm "from". Some towns also have a "People connected with Foo" category for people who lived there or were otherwise closely connected with the place, but weren't actually "from" there. "People from Foo" then becomes a subcat. See, for example, Category:People from Plymouth and Category:People connected with Plymouth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently "I'm from Foo" means a different thing on your side of the pond. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently. Although given the apparent American obsession with "hometowns" it seems to mean the same thing there too. Or does your hometown change every time you move? To me, if I used the term at all, it would mean where I grew up. It's always seemed to me from the media that it means pretty much the same thing in North America. Obviously I'm wrong and it just means "where my home is at the moment, which may change in six months time". Which seems odd, but there you go. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The point you are missing is that to be categorized as being "from" somewhere it has to be a defining characteristic, like any other categorization. So we wouldn't categorize someone for being "from" somewhere if they briefly lived there for 6 months. For someone like Obama, though—it can safely be said that being "from" Chicago is defining for him, even though he was not born or raised there and it is not his "hometown". If you actually apply the categories as they are supposed to be applied, the problem you are highlighting goes away. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question In what situation would you say being from somewhere is defining? Brad7777 (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to say when I would not regard someone as being from somewhere as defining. If they were born there and left in childhood—not defining. If they lived there briefly and the reason they are notable has nothing to do with the time they lived there—not defining. One converse example—if a politician is elected to a legislature to represent a district where he lives, being "from" that place is defining for him, regardless of how long the politician has lived there or if he or she was born or raised there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with 'connected with' or 'associated with' is that they are probably too ambiguous to be objectively used. Take the case where someone spent time in a place in order to design a major building, one of 30 that they designed. Should they be listed in one of these suggested categories? How about 30? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, category:Architects for Springfield, Massachusetts might be of use in that case. The "associated with" or "from" category should be most vague as to include anyone related to the place, that does not belong to a more specific child of it. Basically it would act like a sieve-category. With an advantage; as it is being populated, the common reasons for the inclusion of articles into this category could give birth to more child categories. It would be beautiful. But on a serious note, Category:People connected with Plymouth does this just fine. Brad7777 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For me, 'architects for' seems excessively ambiguous and very unclear as to its purpose. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this hypothetical situation Category:Architects for buildings in Springfield, Massachusetts would be more exclusive? Or even Category:Designers of the buildings in Springfield, Massachusetts? Brad7777 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which presupposes that the architects are notable for having designed these buildings. Is Frank Gehry notable for having designed the Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health? Or did he get the commission for being notable for his past works? I would suspect that it is the latter and hence not defining for the architect. However the fact that he did design it, could well help establish the notability of a building. If you go in this direction, how do you know when you cross the line between establishing notability and getting commissions for being notable? Can you gain or increase or establish your notability for a late in life design? How does that affect the notability of earlier designs? All in all, there are too many issues with creating categories in that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any article that exists on "designers of buildings" should exist because they are notable, or because there work is notable. All the buildings of a city that a designer has designed for a city are notable with respect to the the designer and with respect to that city's history. The degree of notability of such buildings, and how/when the designer became notable should be the article. Brad7777 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Plants used in traditional South and Central American medicine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This is without prejudice to creating something similar when it can be supported by citations in lists or articles. – Fayenatic London 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Plants used in traditional South and Central American medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No article on traditional south and central American medicine, possibly fails WP:OR Brad7777 (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do categories necessarily need a main article? I put plants in there because the articles themselves said they were used in traditional medicine. I was going to diffuse the category out with subcats once it was filled, by the way. Asarelah (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply no but I think they should be sourced. The only article that is in this category the article category is Açaí palm, which doesn't say it is a traditional medicine or even a medicine anywhere on the page. Brad7777 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to reply Not anymore, I have just added another entry to this category - I am sure there are many more. Ottawahitech (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I agree there are probably many more. Brad7777 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Analytic philosophers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All analytic philosophers are specifically from those era's. All analytic philosophers have categories "Analytic philosophers" & "X-century philosophers", so a split would merge this. "X-century philosophers" seems arbitrary without a link to the characteristic traditions. Brad7777 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups by genre

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 22. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. These two categories appears to constitute a redundant intermediate level which would have made some sense if they were part of a global scheme, but that seems not to be the case. It looks to me as there would be no negative consequences of simply removing these category and allow all their members to go directly into their one parent, Category:Norwegian heavy metal musical groups/Category:Swedish heavy metal musical groups. __meco (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have just learned about the existence of another three categories,
I am now unsure how to proceed with this nomination, especially so as this added level is also present one level up, i.e.,
My principal contention remains, however, that this level seems unneeded and that removing it would not cause the categories which would be the upmerge targets to become crowded or difficult to assess or otherwise deal with. __meco (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Magical girls

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Magical girl anime and manga characters. The Bushranger One ping only 00:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Magical girls -> Category:Magical girls in anime and manga
Nominator's rationale Rename this confusing category because it has been applied incorrectly to such articles as Hermione Granger and Sabrina Spellman. The category cannot be used for magical girls in the general sense, because its parent cats are all anime and manga related. Therefore, this category should specify by its name that it is also anime and manga related, to avoid all confusion in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

More comics immortals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: listify. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Listify, following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 3#Category:Fictional immortals, which was closed with a consensus to listify two head categories (i.e. replace them with one or more lists). The list(s) have not yet been created. It would be desirable to deal with these similar sub-categories at the same time. – Fayenatic London 12:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Current Grand Ole Opry members

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge, per the convention to not subdivide most categories for people into "former" or "current" statuses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a person is no longer a member should the be on the list of members? They could be fired, they could die or they could become inactive.Tomsv 98 (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We categorise people by affiliation without distinguishing past, present, etc. For "Current members of the Grand Ole Opry", we would use a list. Your concern above is exactly why we don't categorise using "current". - The Bushranger One ping only 16:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches by dedication

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Consensus is that common dedication, despite not being at the same level as merely common naming, is not sufficiently defining to merit categorization. If anyone would like to create lists of churches by dedication, I can provide a list of the categories' contents upon request. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a recently created scheme, and appears to me to just be a re-worded variation of "churches named XXXX" or "churches named after XXXX", which have been repeatedly deleted as overcategorization by shared naming feature. I understand that the wording is slightly different and a church being "dedicated" to someone is slightly different than merely being "named after" them, but I don't see why the distinction would mean we would categorize churches "dedicated" to a particular person but not categorize other buildings or things "named after" the person. We have some lists, such as List of churches named after Saint Joseph, and some disambiguation pages, such as Church of Saint Pancras. These seem to me to the ideal way of dealing with this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women prime ministers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The nominated category is a new category, and while it is incompletely populated it essentially duplicates the target category, which is not terribly large so as to need dividing into prime ministers and non-prime ministers. The distinction is rather dubious anyways, since often a non-head of state that is head of government is referred to as a "prime minister" regardless as to whether that is the position's official title or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More